Pale Moon - web browser
Re: Pale Moon
The 3.x versions of Pale Moon have been just optimized Firefox builds, but the 4.x series is becoming a fork of Firefox. See http://www.palemoon.org/pm4-dev.shtml.
My YouTube channel | Release date of my 13th playlist: August 24, 2020
Re: Pale Moon
I didn't see this when you first posted -- thanks.SYSTEM wrote:The author has published the modifications
On a related note, they have introduced redistribution restrictions, even though its probably incompatible with both the MPL and GPL: http://www.palemoon.org/redist.shtml
Re: Pale Moon
It's incompatible with GPL for sure, but it doesn't have to be. I don't know MPL too well, but it seems to me there are no problems with it.
Re: Pale Moon
In addition...m^(2) wrote:It's incompatible with GPL for sure
Some of the restrictions can be simply ignored.GNU General Public License wrote: All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further
restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you
received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is
governed by this License along with a term that is a further
restriction, you may remove that term.
My YouTube channel | Release date of my 13th playlist: August 24, 2020
Re: Pale Moon
No. Mozilla gave it to the Pale Moon team under GPL / LGPL / MPL of their choice.SYSTEM wrote:In addition...m^(2) wrote:It's incompatible with GPL for sure
Some of the restrictions can be simply ignored.GNU General Public License wrote: All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further
restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you
received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is
governed by this License along with a term that is a further
restriction, you may remove that term.
Clearly, they chose MPL and provided the stuff to you under a restrictive license (which MPL allows (in general case, still not 100% sure it's OK here)). You're obligated to use the license given by Pale Moon or take software from sb. else. Which is not exactly the same software.
BTW I'm using Pale Moon for several months and I can't really recommend it because it breaks some sites. It's rare and not a deal big enough to switch back now because I'm migrating from this PC anyway, but if it was available on FreeBSD, I wouldn't use it anyway.
Re: Pale Moon
From the redistribution page (emphasis added):m^(2) wrote: No. Mozilla gave it to the Pale Moon team under GPL / LGPL / MPL of their choice.
Clearly, they chose MPL and provided the stuff to you under a restrictive license (which MPL allows (in general case, still not 100% sure it's OK here)). You're obligated to use the license given by Pale Moon or take software from sb. else. Which is not exactly the same software.
Even though Pale Moon is open source and supplied under the MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-license, redistribution of the binaries is limited by certain conditions.
Interesting, I haven't noticed that. (But Pale Moon is only my secondary browser anyway.)m^(2) wrote: BTW I'm using Pale Moon for several months and I can't really recommend it because it breaks some sites. It's rare and not a deal big enough to switch back now because I'm migrating from this PC anyway, but if it was available on FreeBSD, I wouldn't use it anyway.
My YouTube channel | Release date of my 13th playlist: August 24, 2020
Re: Pale Moon
Oh, sorry, I missed that.SYSTEM wrote: From the redistribution page (emphasis added):
Even though Pale Moon is open source and supplied under the MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-license, redistribution of the binaries is limited by certain conditions.
That's weird. And funny because it indeed invalidates their own restrictions.
Re: Pale Moon
If I understand correctly, this restrictive license governs Pale Moon, but also Pale Moon Portable as a whole. It's funny because Pale Moon Portable uses the winPenPack Platform (Palemoon-Portable.exe and Palemoon-Portable.ini), that is governed by the winPenPack License Agreement (practically by the GPL: "Materials and software created by winPenPack Team, except where indicated, are released under GNU General Public License"). I think if Pale Moon's developers are free to release Pale Moon binaries under the MPL with these conditions, they should not place such strict limitations for the launcher that must be released under the GNU General Public License, without those restrictions.webfork wrote:On a related note, they have introduced redistribution restrictions, even though its probably incompatible with both the MPL and GPL: http://www.palemoon.org/redist.shtml
Re: Pale Moon
Pale Moon Portable 7.0 crashes on startup on some systems, including mine.
As a result, I decided to hold the entry for now.
As a result, I decided to hold the entry for now.
My YouTube channel | Release date of my 13th playlist: August 24, 2020
Re: Pale Moon
That thread says it was fixed pretty fast. Did you try that one too?
Re: Pale Moon
No, because I wasn't aware of the fix.Erkhyan wrote:That thread says it was fixed pretty fast. Did you try that one too?
Thanks for the heads up. I'll try Pale Moon Portable 7.0a right now.
Edit: Yep, version 7.0a fixes the issue. Entry updated.
My YouTube channel | Release date of my 13th playlist: August 24, 2020
Re: Pale Moon
[Moderator note:
This thread has spawned two others for web browsers:
... these were moved to a separate area to avoid a thread hijack.]
This thread has spawned two others for web browsers:
... these were moved to a separate area to avoid a thread hijack.]
Re: Pale Moon
Was looking at the Pale Moon wikipedia page to see if I could track down some kind of independent speed testing for it (or WaterFox) and was amused by the favorable editing of the Wikipedia page with the italics used in the sentence Pale Moon works with an optimized code base that takes full advantage of modern processor instruction sets.
Yes. Full advantage.
Yes. Full advantage.
Re: Pale Moon
Since this thread has spawned more browser topics than you could shake a hand at (my exaggeration, I know), it's only fair that the latest browser comparative by Raymond.cc be posted here:
http://www.raymond.cc/blog/battle-of-th ... ory-usage/
http://www.raymond.cc/blog/battle-of-th ... ory-usage/
Re: Pale Moon
Certainly an interesting test, can't say I'm surprised at some of the results.Midas wrote:Since this thread has spawned more browser topics than you could shake a hand at (my exaggeration, I know), it's only fair that the latest browser comparative by Raymond.cc be posted here:
http://www.raymond.cc/blog/battle-of-th ... ory-usage/